Report on the results of the Regional Survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe

Belgrade 2012

Maja Franković

Branislava Lazarević

Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade

Contents

INTRODUCTION 5

MISSION 6SCOPE 6METHODOLOGY 6IMPLEMENTATION 7

SURVEY RESULTS 8

MOSAIC PAVEMENTS IN MUSEUMS 9MOSAIC PAVEMENTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OPEN TO PUBLIC 12MOSAIC CONSERVATORS 17

DATABASE 20

EFFECTS OF SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION 21

CONCLUSION 22

POSSIBILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT IN THE FUTURE 23

APPENDIX 25

PROJECT: REGIONAL SURVEY MOSAIC CONSERVATION AND TRAINING OF

CONSERVATORS IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

Partners

Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade

UNESCO Venice Office - BRESCE

National Academy of Art, Sofia

RA ICOM SEE

Responsible person

Prof. Dr. Mila Popović-Živančević, Director of Central Institute for Conservation in

Belgrade, President of RA ICOM SEE

Project authors and coordinators

Maja Franković, MA, senior conservator, Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade

Branislava Lazarević, MA, conservator, Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade

Survey team

Albana Hakani, Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports, Archaeological Service

Agency (ASHA), Albania (2007-2010)

Edvin Lamce, Albanian Heritage Foundation, Tirana, Albania (2010 -

Erjona Qilla, Butrint National Park, Albania (2007 -

Amra Šarančić, Commission to Preserve National Monuments, Bosnia and Herzegovina

(2007 – 2011)

Admir Ibričić, Faculty of Philosophy, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (2011 -

Vanja Šotra Dursun, The Republic Institute for Protection of Cultural, Historical and

Natural Heritage of the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina (2011 -

Krassimira Frangova, National Academy of Arts, Sofia, Bulgaria (2007 -

Marijeta Babin, Conservation Department Trogir, Ministry of Culture, Croatia (2007-2011)

Antonija Buljan, Croatian Conservation Institute, Croatia (2011 -

Toni Šaina, Croatian Conservation Institute, Croatia (2011 -

Željko Čelebić, Republic Institute for the Protection of the Cultural Monuments, Cetinje,

Montenegro (2008-2010)

Jasminka Grgurević, Regional Institute for the protection of the Cultural Monuments,

Kotor, Montenegro (2011 -

Nikola Upevče, NI Institute and Museum Ohrid, FYROM (2007-

Toni Nikolovski, NI Institute and Museum Bitola, FYROM (2011-

Slivana Blaževska, National Institution for Management of the Archaeological Site Stobi,

FYROM (2011 -

Nemanja Smičiklas, Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments,

Belgrade, Serbia (2011-

Jovana Mijatović, Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade (2012-

Blaž Šeme, Academy of Fine Arts and Design, Ljubljana, Slovenia (2008-

Asparuh Mihailov, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Slovenia

(2011-

INTRODUCTION

Regional survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe was

initiated in 2007 with the aim to define the needs for conservation of ancient mosaic

pavements in the region and to develop educational programs in the field of mosaic

conservation at the regional level. It was initiated by a group of young professionals from the

region, all being participants in the ICCROM Programme of Archaeological Conservation in

Southeast Europe. The idea behind this initiative was to try to raise awareness at regional

level, both amongst professionals and national authorities, about the needs for more organized

and active protection of the ancient mosaic heritage in the region.

After the preliminary survey was done in 2008 and first results presented on various meetings

of conservation professionals in the region and internationally, the survey received attention

and support of conservation community, considering the obvious benefit that could be gained

from a systematic review on the situation in the region and the fact that surveys of this type

were rare1

. The survey was then developed into the project by Central Institute for

Conservation in Belgrade. From 2011, the project was supported by UNESCO Office in

Venice, Regional Alliance ICOM SEE and National Academy of Art, Sofia and was led by the

Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade.

1 The survey was presented at: 10th ICCM Conference, Conservation: An Act of Discovery, 20 – 26 October

2008, Palermo, Italy; IIC 2010 Congress - Conservation and the Eastern Mediterranean, 20 – 24 September 2010

Istanbul, Turkey (poster presentation) (oral presentation, paper in press); ICOMTwenty-second General

Conference - Theme: Museums for Social Harmony, 7 – 12 November 2010, Shanghai, China (poster

presentation); 11. Strokovno srečanje konservatorjev-restavratorjev, Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, 17

May 2011, Ljubljana, Slovenia (poster presentation).

Mission

Project mission was to determine capacities of the region regarding ancient mosaic heritage

and its state of conservation, as well as conservation resources, in order to allow for efficient

planning and implementation of conservation and educational projects in the future.

Scope

The survey referred to ancient mosaic pavements in the region of Southeast Europe. The

region is rich in mosaic heritage, but a large number of sites are closed to public visit and

documentation is mostly unavailable. To make the survey feasible, it was directed only at

ancient mosaic pavements on archaeological sites that are open to public and at mosaics in

museum collections. It covered

Methodology

eight countries in the region: Albania, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, FYROM, Serbia and Slovenia.

The survey was conducted trough questionnaires.

1.

Three questionnaires were conceived to

fulfill the following objectives of the survey:

2.

To present a quantitative picture of the existence of ancient mosaic pavements on

archaeological sites open to public and in museums in the region of Southeast Europe

3.

To present the quantitative and qualitative picture of the state of conservation of

ancient mosaic pavements on archaeological sites open to public and in museums in

the region of Southeast Europe

To determine the number of people working in mosaic conservation, their professional

qualifications, as well as the existence of academic study programs and professional

training programs in the region.

Questionnaires for mosaics on sites and in museums were conceived in a way to provide

answers needed to achieve the first two objectives. They contained questions concerning

general information on archaeological site/museum, surfaces of mosaics in relation to

conservation methods, preventive conservation and maintenance, availability of mosaics for

public visit, estimated state of conservation and urgency of conservation treatment, current and

planned conservation projects (funding systems, institutions involved in execution of such

projects), as well as information accessibility (existence and accessibility of archaeological,

conservation and monitoring documentation, mosaic corpuses, published papers).

Questionnaire treating mosaic conservation practice served to achieve the third project

objective. It gathered information on educational systems (existence of academic studies,

specializations and/or training courses in the field of mosaic conservation), number of people

working in the field of mosaic conservation, their level of education, affiliation and

memberships in international and local professional organizations, institutions responsible for

mosaics conservation, institutional and professional collaboration at local, regional and

international level.

Survey team was composed of colleagues from the region who took responsibility to

coordinate survey in their countries. The list of institutions responsible for mosaics was

established. Invitation to take part in the survey was sent to 61 institutions around the region,

out of which 44 accepted participation and filled questionnaires for mosaics in their

responsibility. Two institutions declined participation in the survey, four were responsible for

mosaics on sites that are not open to public and therefore couldn’t be included in the survey

and 11 institutions didn’t reply to the invite. Complete survey, that included all museums and

sites open to public with mosaics, was carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,

Implementation

FYROM, Slovenia and Serbia. As some institutions in Albania, Bulgaria and Croatia didn’t

take part in the survey, not all museums and sites open to public from those counties have

been included in the survey. In the period from April 2011 to April 2012, questionnaires were

filled for 39 sites and 32 museums (Appendix).

SURVEY RESULTS

Data processing of 71 questionnaires received from the whole region give total of 12881,75m2

of mosaic pavements. From that number, 1807,55m2 (18%) are in museums and 11075,3m2

Figure 2

(82%) are on archaeological sites open to public ( ). Contribution of each country in

the total sum is calculated from mosaic surfaces, not number of museums and sites included in

the survey.

Figure 1 Surfaces of mosaic pavements in museums and on archaeological sites open to public processed in the survey, distribution by countries

Figure 2 Museum-site ratio of mosaic surfaces processed in the survey

Mosaic pavements in museums

In museums, 728,5m2 (40%) of mosaics surfaces are exhibited and 1078,9m2

Figure 3

(60%) are in

storage ( ).

Figure 3 Stored and exhibited mosaic surfaces in museums according to the type of support

From the total surface of mosaics in museums, both exposed and in storages, 40% is not

conserved, i.e. mostly left as they were when lifted from sites (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Methods of conservation of mosaic surfaces represented in museums

This number represents very high percentage that indicates a significant risk of loss over

time if nothing is done to restore them on a stable support. The largest surfaces of not

conserved mosaics in museums are in Bulgaria and FYROM, followed by Serbia and

Montenegro (Table 1).

Conserved mosaics are placed on different types of supports, following the development of

conservation methods over time. Supports differ from gypsum and cement, to honeycomb

panels (Figure 4).

It is interesting to compare to what extent various kinds of mosaic supports were adopted in

different countries in the region (Table 1). Since type of support can roughly be tied to the

period when mosaics were restored, it can also suggest when most of conservation work had

been done. Even if statistically there is a significant surface of mosaics under category

imbedded in wall or floor, this refers mostly to mosaics on sites in urban areas, where

museums are built over the sites and mosaics are conserved in situ or lifted and relayed on the

new support.

Table 1 Mosaic surfaces according to the type of support exhibited and stored in museums – distribution by countries

Mosaic surfaces exhibited in museums (m2)

country not conserved

imbeded in wall/floor

gypsum cement

cement+ interm.l.

synthetic synthetic+ interm.l.

honeycomb other total

Albania 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 22 B&H 0.1 0 0 18.8 0 0 0 0 0 18.9 Bulgaria 0 0 0 50.5 0 200 0 20 6 276.5

Croatia 0 111 0 0 3.88 0 0 8.33 0 123.21

FYROM 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 50 0 60 Montenegro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serbia 0 83.2 0 0 0 0 2.8 13.8 0 99.8

Slovenia 0 3.35 0 48.89 0 0 0 0 76 128.24

total 0.1 201.55 118.19 31.88 200 2.8 92.13 82 728.6 Mosaic surfaces stored in museums (m2)

country not conserved

imbeded in wall/floor

gypsum cement

cement+ interm. l.

synthetic synthetic+interm.l. honeycomb other total

Albania 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 30 B&H 17.81 0 0 26.62 0 0 0 0 0 44.43

Bulgaria 366.52 0 1.87 73.39 0 150 0.98 0 0 592.76

Croatia 5.62 0 0 0.96 0 0 0 13.2 0 19.78 FYROM 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 Montenegro 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Serbia 52.7 0 27.9 0 7 0 0 27.8 0.1 115.5 Slovenia 10.66 0 0.3 0.16 0 0 0 0 0.31 11.43 total 718.31 30.07 101.13 37 150 0.98 41 0.41 1079

Questionnaires also contained questions that required respondents to provide an assessment on

mosaics condition and need for their conservation. Although subjective, these ratings showed

the overall trend related to the need of mosaics conservation in the region (Figure 5). Processed

data showed that 33% of museums rated their mosaics as urgent for conservation and 46%

stated that mosaics conservation is necessary for presentation. Ten museums (30%) have plans

regarding conservation of mosaics in their collections, but only five (15%) have active

conservation projects.

Figure 5 Estimated state of conservation and urgency of conservation treatment for mosaics in museums

Mosaic pavements on archaeological sites open to public

Unlike mosaics in museums, mosaics on archaeological sites open to public are, for the most

part, conserved. Considering method of conservation, almost equal parts of mosaics on sites

are conserved in situ (43%) and lifted and relayed on cement with intermediate layer (37%).

Adding small portions of mosaics lifted and relayed on lime support (2%), mosaics lifted and

relayed directly on cement (3%) and lifted and restored on a movable support (2%), 87% of

mosaic surfaces in the region have undergone conservation treatment in one way or another

(Figure 6).

Figure 6 Methods of conservation of mosaic surfaces represented on archaeological sites open to public

Displacing mosaics from sites is the approach that is rarely practiced. Only 178,7m2 are lifted

and restored on movable support and 366,3m2

Table 2

are lifted and not restored, which makes 5% of

mosaic surfaces in the whole region that have been removed from sites open to public. Lifting

and relaying mosaics on the new support seems to be predominant practice in Serbia and while

conservation in situ is more often practiced in Albania, Croatia and Bulgaria. In FYROM, both

methods are almost equally represented ( ). This can be in relation to the period when

most of conservation had been done, but since the question about period of conservation

treatment had not been included in the questionnaire, it cannot be taken for a fact. In Bosnia

and Herzegovina, currently no sites with mosaics are open to public.

Even if majority of mosaics are conserved, quite a small portion is available to the public -

17% is permanently exposed and 19% are periodically exposed during the season. Covering is

predominant measure of preventive conservation taken to protect mosaics on sites – 73% are

covered (54% is covered throughout the year and 19% are periodically uncovered) (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Appearance of mosaic surfaces on archaeological sites open to public

Sheltering is quite rare, from 17% that are permanently exposed, only 11% of mosaic surfaces

are protected with shelters. Figure 7 shows different methods of conservation of mosaics in

relation with their appearance on sites open to public (whether they are reburied, covered,

periodically or permanently exposed with or without shelters, lifted and stored on the site or

lifted and displaced outside of the site) (Figure 8).

Figure 8 Methods of conservation of mosaics in relation with their appearance on archaeological sites open to public

Table 2 Methods of conservation and appearance of mosaic surfaces on archaeological sites open to public (m2) – distribution by countries

Albania Bulgaria B&H Croatia FYROM Montenegro Slovenia Serbia in situ, not conserved

196 303 0 42.3 13 0 38 427.25

conserved in situ

2470.1 211.5 0 337.3 1292.2 0 263.58 24

lifted+relayed on cement

27 30 0 139.7 114.5 43 116 0

lifted+relayed on cement with intermediate layer

0 0 0 0 1369 8 0 2560

lifted+relayed on lime mortar

0 70.5 0 145 124.5 0 0 0

lifted+restored on movable supp.

30 48 0 0 2 0 7.5 91.2

lifted not restored

16 30 0 0 312.8 7.5 0 0

other 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 0

Albania Bulgaria B&H Croatia FYROM Montenegro Slovenia Serbia rebur. 150 200 0 0 37 0 0 0 covered 1776.1 103 0 12 752.1 0 263.58 2970.5

5 periodically exp. without sh.

734 0 0 0 1416.6 0 16.35 0

periodically exp. with sh.

0 0 0 0 51.5 0 21.65 0

permanently exp. without sh.

0 0 0 379.5 234 0 0 4

permanently exp. with sh.

33 282 0 221.6 378 51 118.5 36.75

lifted stored on the site

0 0 0 0 1 7.5 0 12

lifted displaced

47 108 0 58.2 67.4 0 5 76.6

According to respondent’s assessments, overall state of conservation for mosaics on sites is

not satisfactory – 47% of mosaics are rated in poor and very poor condition. Conservation

treatment is rated urgent on 32% of sites and necessary for presentation on 55% (Figure 9).

These ratings are due to the fact that maintenance of mosaics on sites is not planned and

organized. Fifteen out of 38 sites have develloped maintenance plan or strategy, but only 3

have separate budget for maintenance activities. Even if there is no planning of maintenence,

on another 8 sites maintenance actvities do take place, but they vary in frequency and quality.

As for conservation projects, 12 sites (32%) have active conservation projects, and 23 sites

(60%) have projects planned in future.

Figure 9 Estimated state of conservation and urgency of conservation treatment for mosaics on archaeological sites open to public

Mosaic conservators

Results of the survey regarding conservation professionals working in the field of mosaic

conservation pointed out that there is disballance between the quantity of mosaics (Figure 1)

and the number of conservators involved with their conservation, especially those who have

had specialised training in mosaic conservation (Table 3).

Table 3 Profession of mosaic conservators in SE Europe

Country

Acad. studies in cons.

Spec. in mosaic cons. on academic level

Approx. No. of graduates with mosaic cons.

Approx. No. of graduates working in the field

Courses and other kinds of training

Approx. No. of people working on mosaic cons.

Level of education of people practicing mosaic cons.

Albania no no / / yes 10 MA and PhD in archeology

B&H no no / / no 2 MA in arts and archaeology

Bulgaria yes yes (MA) 5 (MA) 3 no 12 mostly MA in conservation

Croatia yes yes 30 10 no 20 BA in conservation

FYROM no no / / yes 6 BA in arts

Montenegro no no / / no 3 BA in conservation

Serbia yes yes (MA) 3 (MA) 1 yes 7

BA/MA in conservation, conservation technicians

Slovenia yes yes (MA) 2 (MA) 2 no 10 BA/MA in arts or conservation

Conservation treatment on sites is carried out by conservators from institutions specialized in

conservation. It is interesting that mosaic maintenance on 49% of sites is entrusted to

conservators-restorers from those institutions as well. Only 7 museums (21%) have

conservators in their staff who can carry out treatment on mosaics. Private companies,

freelancers and NGOs are involved in mosaic conservation in 4% of cases.

In order to assess the interest for training programs in the region of Southeast Europe, an

additional inquiry was run among institutions that participated survey.

Institutions were asked to state their needs for training programs in three areas and to indicate

which of these three areas of training represent priority for their institution:

1. Training of conservators for conservation of mosaics in museums

2. Training of conservators for in situ conservation of mosaics

3. Training of managerial personnel at sites with mosaics

They were also asked to state for each area of training whether there are potential candidates

among their personnel and whether the candidate would be allowed absence from work for 6

weeks to participate in the course. Information collected trough this inquiry is displayed in

Table 4.

Table 4 Results of the training inquiry

CONSERVATION OF MOSAICS IN MUSEUMS

Institution Country Candidate Background

Regional Directorate of National Culture, Tirana Albania 2 Mosaics Conservator and Art conservation specialist

Croatian Conservation Institute Croatia 2 Conservator-restorer

Stari Grad Museum, Hvar Croatia 1 Conservator-restorer

PI Institute and Museum Bitola FYROM 1 Mosaics Conservator

PI Institute and Museum Ohrid FYROM 1 Mosaics Conservator

Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade Serbia 3 Mosaics Conservator

Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural

Monuments, Belgrade

Serbia 2 Mosaics Conservator

Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of

Slovenia

Slovenia 2 Conservator-restorer

CONSERVATION OF MOSAICS IN SITU

Institution Country Candidate Background

Regional Directorate of National Culture,Tirana Albania 2 Mosaics Conservator and Art conservation specialist

DRKK Durres Albania 1 Archaeologist

Archaeological Park Butrint Albania 2 Archaeologist, Monunent specialist

Archeological Park Bylis Albania 1 Archaeologist

Stara Zagora Regional History Museum Bulgaria 1 Conservator-restorer

Croatian Conservation Institute Croatia 2 Conservator-restorer

Stari Grad Museum, Hvar Croatia 1 Conservator-restorer

PI Institute and Museum Bitola FYROM 1 Mosaic Conservator

PI Archaeological Site Stobi FYROM 1 Mosaic Conservator

PI Institute and Museum Ohrid FYROM 1 Mosaics Conservator

Centre for Conservation and Archaeology of

Montenegro, Cetinje

Montenegro 1 Conservator-restorer

Apart from the evident need to build capacities in mosaic conservation profession, this inqiry

showed that there is a considerable interest amongst institutions in the region to train staff in

mosaic conservation. Contacts have been made with MOSAIKON program in order to

investigate possibilities for including SE Europe in this program.

DATABASE

Data obtained trough questionnaires have been incorporated into a database in order to be

systemized, statistically analyzed and to enable presentation of the survey results. Database

can be searched through a number of parameters: conservation methods, availability of

mosaics to the public, preventive conservation, estimated state of conservation, urgency of

conservation treatment, maintenance, active and planned conservation projects, collaboration,

existence of academic studies and training programs, institutions involved with mosaic

conservation, availability of documentation, existence of publications, etc.

Centre for Conservation and Archaeology, Kotor

Database is

available through online web application (website: www.seemosaics.org). Access to integral

versions of the questionnaires (read-only version) is limited with username/password system

Montenegro 1 Conservator-restorer

Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade Serbia 3 Mosaics Conservator

Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural

Monuments, Belgrade

Serbia 2 Mosaics Conservator

Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of

Slovenia

Slovenia 2 Conservator-restorer

MANAGEMENT OF SITES WITH MOSAICS

Institution Country Candidate Background

DRKK Durres Albania 1 Archaeologist

Archaeological Park Butrint Albania 2 Archaeologist, Monunent specialist

Archeological Park Bylis Albania 1 Archaeologist

PI National Park Brijuni Croatia 1 Archaeologist

Centre for Conservation and Archaeology, Kotor Montenegro 1 Conservator-restorer

Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade Serbia 1 Conservator-restorer

Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural

Monuments, Belgrade

Serbia 1 Conservator-restorer

and is available only to registered users. Regular site visitors have access to summarized

versions and various search reports, as the web application allows users to search and display

data in various forms.

EFFECTS OF SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION

Except as a tool to present survey results, the website is also conceived to enable presentation

of all the sites, museums and other institutions that took part in the survey. As such, it could be

further developed to serve for the promotion of mosaic heritage of SE Europe. It could also

serve as information source for activities related to mosaic conservation in the region and,

through a forum, as a meeting point for people involved with mosaic research and

conservation. These possibilities for expending the contents of the website are directions in

which it will be developed in the future.

1. Through implementation of the survey, data on mosaic heritage in SE Europe, their

state of conservation, availability to public, as well as professional capacities had been

gathered, quantified, qualified and systemized.

2. Statistical analysis of the results gives a clear picture of the capacities and the needs for

the conservation and presentation of mosaic heritage in SE Europe.

3. Survey results are made available online to a vast range of users.

4. Access to a complete database is made available to professionals from all the

institutions that took part in the survey (44 institutions from 8 countries).

5. Papers with survey results will be published in conservation publications2

6. Apart from direct results that emerge from the survey, its implementation led to

creating contacts with a large number of professionals and institutions involved with

mosaic heritage, creating a nucleus of professionals interested to foster mosaic heritage

in the region and a platform for developing network of specialists involved with

mosaic conservation – SEE mosaics.

and will

enable professional community to have insight into the capacities of SE Europe

regarding mosaic heritage and its conservation:

CONCLUSION

Overview of the situation regarding mosaic conservation in the region obtained trough the

survey, point out several critical issues:

- In museums, the most serious problem represent quantity of mosaics that have been

lifted but never transferred to the new support. The risk of loss progresivly increases

by leaving them untreated.

- On sites, majority of mosaics are unavailable to the public, mostly due to the fact that

shelters are rare. Since most of mosaics on sites are conserved, poor ratings of their

2 Franković, M., Lazarević, B., Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe, in: Conservation: An act of Discovery, Proceedings of the 10th ICCM Conference, Palermo, Italy, October 20-26, 2008, in press;

Franković, M., Lazarević, B., Results of the Regional Survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe, in: Managing Archaeological Sites with Mosaics: from Real Problems to Practical Solutions, Proceedings of the 11th ICCM Conference, Meknes, Morocco, October 24-27, 2011, in press;

Franković, M., Lazarević, B., Regional Survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe - Overview of the situation in Serbia, in: “Risk Assessment of Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Region of Southeast Europe”, Proceedings of the Second Regional Scientific Conference of ICOM SEE, Niš, Serbia, May 22-25, 2012, in press.

state of conservation are linked to unorganized maintenance, especially to the lack of

separate budget for these activities, but also the lack of personnel.

- Unsufficient number of conservators are in charge of conservation and maintenance of

mosaics on sites and in museums, there is a lack of training programs and specialized

studies in mosaic conservation.

When we take into the account quantity of mosaic pavements in the region, profession

capacities, estimated needs for mosaic conservation and availability of mosaics to the public,

general conclusion is that mosaic conservation in Southeast Europe needs improvement.

POSSIBILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT IN THE FUTURE

Improving mosaic conservation and presentation in the region was discussed at the meeting of

the survey team that was held in September 2011 in Ohrid. Representatives from all the

countries involved with the survey were present. The meeting was organized to make an

overview of the survey results and plan completion of the project, but also to discuss

possibilities for project development in the future. From the conclusions of this meeting,

possibilities for further development and continuation of the project could be summarized:

1. The best way to improve the situation at the regional level would be to connect

institutions by providing training programs in mosaic conservation with the objective

to develop and put in practice conservation projects trough training of participants.

Double objective of such programs could have greater impact on ameliorating state of

mosaic heritage in the region – dissemination of knowledge regarding the modern

approach to mosaic conservation, while at the same time improving state of

conservation of mosaics on sites/museums where program is implemented. Organized

in that way, training programs would advance comunication and exchange of

experiance amongst conservators in the region and allow joint work on eather regional

or international projects.

2. Annual meetings of mosaic conservators from the region could also contribute to

creating contacts and exchange between professionals and institutions involved with

conservation of mosaic heritage.

3. Website, made through this project, could be developed to serve as information source

for activities related to mosaic conservation in the region and as a meeting point for

people involved with mosaic research and conservation. On the other hand, it could

also help wide promotion of mosaic heritage of SE Europe.

APPENDIX

List of museums and archaeological sites open to public that

participated in the survey

Albania museums sites

Butrint Museum, Saranda Apolonia, Fier National Historical Museum Tirana Butrint, Butrint National Park, Saranda Bylis, Hekal Roman Villa and Paleochristian Church, Tirana Shen Mehillit Arapaj Basilica, Durres

Bulgaria museums sites

Archaeological Museum Sandanski Basilica 7, Kyustendil NAIM-BAS Sofia Largo, Kyustendil RHM "Acad. Yordan Ivanov" Kyustendil Stationary Shop, Kyustendil RHM Stara Zagora 32, Neofit Rilski Str., Kyustendil Bishop's Basilica Sandanski House in G.Stoletov Str, Stara Zagora Peristylic building near the Post Palace, Stara

Zagora Bosnia and Herzegovina

museums sites City Museum of Zenica Museum of Herzegovina, Trebinje National Museum, Sarajevo

Croatia museums sites

Archaeological Museum of Istria, Pula Baska, Island Krk, Baska Archaeological Museum Narona, Vid Verige villa rustica, Verige bay Brijuni Complex of Early Christian Churches St. Ivan/St.

Maria, Hvar Archaeological Collection Osor Early Christian Basilica, Liznjan Cres Museum Osor Lošinj Museum Cathedral of the Assumption of the Blessed

Virgin Mary, Pula Museum of Stari Grad, Hvar St. Franjo Monastery, Pula Villa urbana – Punishment of Dirce mosaic, Pula Museum of Trilj County St. Thomas the Apostol Church, Porec NI National park Brijuni Uzarska 23, Rijeka Poreč Heritage Museum Diocletian's palace, Arhidjakonova Street, Split Diocletian's palace, Sector I, Buliceva street, Split Gradina, Roman Therme, Vis

FYROM museums sites

Deboj/NI IPCMM-Ohrid Heraclea Lyncestis, Bitola House of Miladinovi brothers - Struga House of Manchevi, Ohrid NI Institute and Museum - Bitola Plaoshnik, Ohrid

Stobi Church of the Holy Mother of God Perybleptos,

Ohrid Montenegro

museums sites PI "Museums, Gallery and Library" Budva - Museum

Ancient Roman Villa with Mosaics, Risan

Slovenia museums sites

Museum and galleries of Ljubljana Archaeological Park Early Christan Centre (Baptisterium and porticus), Ljubljana

National Museum of Slovenia Archaeological park Emonian house, Ljubljana Regional Museum Celje Church of the St. Spiritus, Crnomelj Regional Museum Koper Simons' Bay, Izola Regional Museum Maribor Regional Museum Ptuj Ormoz

Serbia museums sites

Belgrade City Museum Caričin Grad (Ivstiniana Prima), Lebane Museum of Srem Felix Romuliana, Zajecar National Museum in Belgrade Mediana, Nis National Museum Zajecar Sirmium, Sremska Mitrovica